More PAC-16 stuff | The Boneyard
.-.

More PAC-16 stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.
Was checking out the Big 12-2 boards late lst night. After a cooling down period last week, this has again become the hot burner topic, even surpassing post game talk of this past weekend games.
Kansas fans hope to get a Pac invite along with Mizzou over Texas Tech & OK St. Mizzou wants the SEC or Big-10. Iowa State just doesn't want to be left out in the cold. K State is holding out for the Big East. All are waiting with baited breath to see what direction the Sooners send their chuck wagon.
 
RS9999X said:
Texas, OU, OSU and Texas Tech.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...s-texas-longhorns-being-discussed-source-says

Presumably Missouri to the SEC
Expand ...

The SEC and Texas A&M now have a legal problem. I always questioned the point of Texas A&M's choreographed "we're leaving on our own volition, not getting raided" dance because anyone who has ever been involved in a tortious interference situation would know that the SEC is way over the wall on this issue if the Big 12 ever wanted to press the claim. A&M's best defense was always going to be that there were no damages, so the Big 12 had no claim. In their perfect world, the Big 12 replaced A&M with BYU or someone with no financial impact to the TV deal, and everyone moved along.

Now there are potentially enormous damages for Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, Kansas and Missouri. A starting point would be the value of the Big 12 TV deal to each of those schools over the life of the deal, which is probably in the $200 million area, per school. A&M stipulating that they were leaving the Big 12 with or without an SEC invitation would be a minor point, since there is likely hundreds of emails that will paint a very different story in discovery.

It will be interesting to see what the SEC does here. Are they prepared to take on up to a billion dollars in potential legal liability just to add Texas A&M?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The SEC and Texas A&M now have a legal problem. I always questioned the point of Texas A&M's choreographed "we're leaving on our own volition, not getting raided" dance because anyone who has ever been involved in a tortious interference situation would know that the SEC is way over the wall on this issue if the Big 12 ever wanted to press the claim. A&M's best defense was always going to be that there were no damages, so the Big 12 had no claim. In their perfect world, the Big 12 replaced A&M with BYU or someone with no financial impact to the TV deal, and everyone moved along.

Now there are potentially enormous damages for Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, Kansas and Missouri. A starting point would be the value of the Big 12 TV deal to each of those schools over the life of the deal, which is probably in the $200 million area, per school. A&M stipulating that they were leaving the Big 12 with or without an SEC invitation would be a minor point, since there is likely hundreds of emails that will paint a very different story in discovery.

It will be interesting to see what the SEC does here. Are they prepared to take on up to a billion dollars in potential legal liability just to add Texas A&M?
Expand ...

Apparently, the Big12 had already settled an exit figure with Texas A&M, which takes a bite out of their claim. Second factor, don't forget that the ACC was sued by UConn and the BE--to no avail. Third factor, by the time everything is settled, there will only be a few Big12 teams left pressing such a court case. Who are they going to sue? The SEC, Pac12, their former conference mates?
 
upstater said:
Apparently, the Big12 had already settled an exit figure with Texas A&M, which takes a bite out of their claim. Second factor, don't forget that the ACC was sued by UConn and the BE--to no avail. Third factor, by the time everything is settled, there will only be a few Big12 teams left pressing such a court case. Who are they going to sue? The SEC, Pac12, their former conference mates?
Expand ...

A couple of things. The settlement is only relevant if A&M has fully disclosed the extent of its communications with the SEC and that it was going to the SEC, and if it was actually executed, which I am 99% certain it was not.

The UConn/BE suit was 100% successful. The other BCS schools didn't dare yank the BCS bid, because that would have set up a huge damage claim against the ACC and a potential anti-trust suit against the BCS. In case you forgot, UConn played in the Fiesta Bowl last January.

They will sue the SEC, and likely A&M. The claim will be that the SEC induced A&M to illegally break their contract with the Big 12, resulting in material damages to the members of the Big 12. You could potentially have all 9 Big 12 schools join the suit, although only Iowa State, Baylor and whoever was left out of a major conference would have significant claims.
 
.-.
Waylon (I know, Nelson), how did the legal action that the Big East brought against the ACC work out? Considering the fact that in the immediate past the B-12 allowed both Nebraska and Colorado to walk and pay only departure penalities, in the not very distant past all remaining members of the B-12 joined the conference as a continuation of (a full in one case, partial the other) earlier, long standing conference affiliations which kicked half of one of the former conference's membership to the curb and, current members of the (supposedly) aggrieved conference are currently looking to leave, I don't see how litigation will lead to anything beyond a small, minor settlement prior to actually reaching a court.

I realize that your old posts professing the immense television deal that the BE was on the cusp of reaching and your beloved hybrid conference configuration will become casualties of the demise of the B-12 but among the facts that you are too stubborn to accept are the fact that by the time the BE can sign the new deal, the BE may well only consist of catholic members and the fate of the B-12 will not be decided by ISU, BU, KU & UM (those who you listed as fearing damages) but by UT and OU. It appears to be quite obvious that OU wants out. UT is stuck with the decision of whether to be the anchor of the B-12 (hoping to lure enough new members to keep the conference relevant) or join OU. If an agreement acceptable to both sides (UT, other 15 of the new P-16) on revenue sharing between the LHN and the P-12's regional networks can be reached, it is over. If not, UT's choices will then be as king of an exceptionally weakened conference (dependent on how many B-12 memebrs leave) or independence (something they don't want until they've had a decade to establish the LHN). Missouri, Kansas, et al will not be who holds the B-12 together.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
A couple of things. The settlement is only relevant if A&M has fully disclosed the extent of its communications with the SEC and that it was going to the SEC, and if it was actually executed, which I am 99% certain it was not.

The UConn/BE suit was 100% successful. The other BCS schools didn't dare yank the BCS bid, because that would have set up a huge damage claim against the ACC and a potential anti-trust suit against the BCS. In case you forgot, UConn played in the Fiesta Bowl last January.

They will sue the SEC, and likely A&M. The claim will be that the SEC induced A&M to illegally break their contract with the Big 12, resulting in material damages to the members of the Big 12. You could potentially have all 9 Big 12 schools join the suit, although only Iowa State, Baylor and whoever was left out of a major conference would have significant claims.
Expand ...

I doubt it's going to happen for the same reason that others begged off suits in the last couple years. There's a stigma involved when you sue. Remember stories of Leach not being hired at Maryland because he was suing ESPN? If those schools have no hope of getting into an AQ conference again, then perhaps they should sue. If I were them, I'd be worried about who I was suing however.
 
I'll say it again. Texas is really effed up, if they give up their Longhorn Network to join the Pac 16, since not insisting on having it would have likely kept the Big 12 together. Shame on them for walking all over their existing partners only to concede the one thing causing all of the contempt amongst the Big 12 schools. That is straight bull !
 
I don't understand your theory on how someone is going to be sued. Texas Aggies are allowed to leave the conference, just as BC and Miami were. What made the Big East suit reasonable was that BC was serving in special fiduciary positions to the Big East at the time they were leaving, that Miami had made promises that other schools acted upon and that BC and Miami acted in concert. I don't think anyone in College Station is worried about this (although I'm sure they appreciate your concern).
 
IIRC, there were a handful of home and home games granted to BE schools from the ACC (UConn-UVA was ours) as part of a settlement and the suit waqs dropped at that point (wiuth some minimal financial damages). I don't see how this makes the BE 100% successful but if this is 100% success, the cost (beyond departure fees) to A&M, OU or anyone else leaving the B-12 won't be close to enough to deter them.
 
Not if the PAC-16 and SEC-14 and BE-12 evolves. There might be one team needing reparations at that point. Baylor's Billion Dollar endowment needs feeding. I think Baylor's a better fit with the new BE than some do. I'd take them over Iowa State.
 
.-.
RS9999X said:
Not if the PAC-16 and SEC-14 and BE-12 evolves. There might be one team needing reparations at that point. Baylor's Billion Dollar endowment needs feeding. I think Baylor's a better fit with the new BE than some do. I'd take them over Iowa State.
Expand ...

I'm pretty sure every fan and every conference would take Baylor or Iowa St.
 
I really don't get this. Why is the Big East better or more financially successful with either Iowa State or Baylor?

More importantly, while many see the need to do something, no matter what the something is, I am not sure what there is to be gained to allow Kansas, K State and Mizzou in. Would I love them in as replacements for departing football schools, if there are any? Absolutely. But in the absence of that, why? How does that increase revenue per school? Why does that make us better? And don't tell me championship game, unless you are willing to say everyone who ridicules the ACC Championship game (which should be ridiculed) is an idiot. What will make ours successful if theres is not?
 
Well I think Missouri would add to the big east's football image and kansas fits the big east mold of being really good at basketball and mediocre at football ...
i guess kansas state is in a city called manhattan and that might confuse some of the bidders for our future tv deals?
but i agree i see no advantage of creating a big east championship game
 
Kansas and Missouri add to the bottom line. They are at least as popular with fans as many of the BE schools. Kansas st, not so much. But more than that, the additional schools would make BE members less likely to jump ship for the ACC, not when the BE can presumably hang together should a school look elsewhere at some point. Unless the SEC comes calling, I don't see a team needing to join the ACC (and take less money) when it knows the BE will hang together should one school depart.
 
businesslawyer said:
I really don't get this. Why is the Big East better or more financially successful with either Iowa State or Baylor?

More importantly, while many see the need to do something, no matter what the something is, I am not sure what there is to be gained to allow Kansas, K State and Mizzou in. Would I love them in as replacements for departing football schools, if there are any? Absolutely. But in the absence of that, why? How does that increase revenue per school? Why does that make us better? And don't tell me championship game, unless you are willing to say everyone who ridicules the ACC Championship game (which should be ridiculed) is an idiot. What will make ours successful if theres is not?
Expand ...

I won't speak for anyone else. I was saying if we ever get to a circumstance where it's one or the other, I'd take Baylor over Iowa St in a heartbeat.

As for KU, KSU and Mizzou, as I said in another thread, it wouldn't be my first choice, but if the re-alignment chips fall where we'd take them to form a 12/20 conference, I can see how it would work.

On any re-alignment/expansion thread, for me it's all fun and hypothetical. It's like Soduko or a crossword puzzle.
 
upstater said:
Kansas and Missouri add to the bottom line. They are at least as popular with fans as many of the BE schools. Kansas st, not so much. But more than that, the additional schools would make BE members less likely to jump ship for the ACC, not when the BE can presumably hang together should a school look elsewhere at some point. Unless the SEC comes calling, I don't see a team needing to join the ACC (and take less money) when it knows the BE will hang together should one school depart.
Expand ...
Upstater to add another point to your post...by adding these 3 schools the football schools at 12 can control and protect their own destiny as well as have the ability to become a basketball super cinference in their own right if they decide to split from the basketball schools.
 
.-.
If for no other reason, they add to the perception of legitimacy. Mizzou is the best football team of the bunch, and KU and KSU are average football programs, but they are nonetheless legitimate BCS names. Plus it adds a lot more stability to the conference than adding a bunch of useless CUSA schools. Any ACC schools coming our way only happens if the ACC implodes, which remains to be seen. I'm not convinced the SEC is going to go to 16 just because the PAC does, if it means adding marginal and repetitive teams.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
IIRC, there were a handful of home and home games granted to BE schools from the ACC (UConn-UVA was ours) as part of a settlement and the suit waqs dropped at that point (wiuth some minimal financial damages). I don't see how this makes the BE 100% successful but if this is 100% success, the cost (beyond departure fees) to A&M, OU or anyone else leaving the B-12 won't be close to enough to deter them.
Expand ...

I am pretty sure the Big East still has a BCS bid. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
Quick question, would it be in the Big East football schools best interest to Join what would be left of the Big 12 conference under the Big 12 name? The Big 12 has an auto BCS bid that they wouldn't lose if they added the Big East schools, and Basketball schools keep the Big East name and keep the NCAAs autobid an the much discussed basketball credits (truth be told I don't even know how those work).

Would the Big 12 be able to offer more money per team than the BE under their current television deal?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I am pretty sure the Big East still has a BCS bid. Correct me if I am wrong.
Expand ...

Are you claiming that the lawsuit is the reason we still have a BCS bid? How can you posssibly be that deluded?

Additionally, and more to your initial point that litigation will keep the B-12 together (and that the BE's being 100% successful
with their lawsuit was evidence that the B-12 will be successful), are you claiming that the B-12 without three of the northern schools (those you claimed would be scared off by a lawsuit) would no longer be able to keep thier BCS bid? If this is not your claim please explain what your comment that I quoted meant.
 
businesslawyer said:
I don't understand your theory on how someone is going to be sued. Texas Aggies are allowed to leave the conference, just as BC and Miami were. What made the Big East suit reasonable was that BC was serving in special fiduciary positions to the Big East at the time they were leaving, that Miami had made promises that other schools acted upon and that BC and Miami acted in concert. I don't think anyone in College Station is worried about this (although I'm sure they appreciate your concern).
Expand ...

I believe the Tortious Interference claim would focus on the SEC's actions to induce Texas A&M to leave the Big 12. The SEC had no rights or privileges to induce Texas A&M to act in that manner. An indication that the SEC knows they have a problem is that it wanted A&M to withdraw from the Big 12 prior to applying to the SEC. The problem for the SEC is that they probably have a paper trail of emails and conversations between A&M and the SEC and among the SEC members, as a decision like this would have a lot of people involved in the decision process, and A&M would want implicit assurances before they withdrew from the Big 12.

Until now, the strongest protection for the SEC from a claim by the Big 12 or any of its members would be a lack of damages to the Big 12 members. If A&M left, so what? Iowa State and the rest would keep getting paid. This was ultimately what protected Colorado and Nebraska. When the Big 12 tripled its revenue on the next TV deal, it is hard to make a claim of damages. Now is a different situation. And most reports around this process have noted that the SEC and A&M have been taking extensive steps to protect themselves legally. Why would they bother unless they were concerned about a lawsuit?
 
.-.
upstater said:
I doubt it's going to happen for the same reason that others begged off suits in the last couple years. There's a stigma involved when you sue. Remember stories of Leach not being hired at Maryland because he was suing ESPN? If those schools have no hope of getting into an AQ conference again, then perhaps they should sue. If I were them, I'd be worried about who I was suing however.
Expand ...

So you are saying Iowa State will walk away from $200 million because they are embarrassed about what someone might think of them?

There is definitely a stigma in business associated with being considered litigious. There is a bigger stigma in business when people consider you a pushover.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
504
Guests online
6,243
Total visitors
6,747
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,619
Messages
4,447,251
Members
10,317
Latest member
Willy96


Top Bottom